IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Sat, 07 October 2006 12:45 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWBYR-0003G1-R3; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:45:23 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWBYQ-0003Fc-Cy for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:45:22 -0400
Received: from smtp1.xmundo.net ([201.216.232.80]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GWBYO-00082d-U0 for tcpm@ietf.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:45:22 -0400
Received: from venus.xmundo.net (venus.xmundo.net [201.216.232.56]) by smtp1.xmundo.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C8CEF0C494; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 09:50:54 -0300 (ART)
Received: from fgont.gont.com.ar (171-180-231-201.fibertel.com.ar [201.231.180.171]) (authenticated bits=0) by venus.xmundo.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k97CiAYx016615; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 09:45:04 -0300
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.0.20061007042611.04dc8780@gont.com.ar>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:36:54 -0300
To: gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Subject: Re: [tcpm] draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-uto-02
In-Reply-To: <451C36FF.3000801@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
References: <BF9BD734.4234%gorry@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6.2.0.14.0.20051201035418.0323fc48@localhost> <4390569C.6050004@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <6.2.0.14.0.20051202201002.048b5de8@localhost> <20051208222808.GB22920@hut.isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20051208164304.041ead70@localhost> <20051209182531.GC1177@hut.isi.edu> <439D7400.20902@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <20051212235603.GB1156@hut.isi.edu> <6.2.0.14.0.20051213012758.048ed298@localhost> <43A02978.4020809@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <45116707.9050301@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <7.0.1.0.0.20060920170030.05da7c80@gont.com.ar> <4519586D.1080509@erg.abdn.ac.uk> <7.0.1.0.0.20060927230203.08077e98@gont.com.ar> <451C36FF.3000801@erg.abdn.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a
Cc: Lars Eggert <lars.eggert@netlab.nec.de>, tcpm@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

At 17:56 28/09/2006, Gorry Fairhurst wrote:

>So... just to backtrack to an earlier discussion on this: Using the 
>recommended algorithm you say" Consequently, the lower limit 
>(L_LIMIT) SHOULD be set to at least 100 seconds." Is there a reason 
>why we don't specify a required minimum UTO value for all cases? A 
>value of 100 seconds seems big for an RTO, over a normal Internet path.

How about this modification to the last paragraph of page 6:

"   To protect against these effects, implementations MUST impose limits
    on the user timeout values they accept and use.  In particular, the
    adopted user timeout MUST be larger than the last measured
    retransmission timeout (RTO) at the time of adoption, and
    SHOULD NOT be smaller than 100 seconds."

Kindest regards,

--
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@acm.org
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1






_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email